Translations and Theology - Fr. Robert Hart

from The Continuum

"I was responding to a comment in another post, and realized that this subject justifies a bit more than one blog comment. We will begin with the comment I was writing in response:

Raphael wrote:

[The Douay-Rheims translation] has been in use since its first edition in 1610. It is a near as possible word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate, being the work of St. Jerome (342-420). St. Jerome's work is a careful, word-for-word translation of the original texts.

We do owe a lot to St. Jerome, but here we see a need for better scholarship than was possible in his age. 1 The traditional translation of the First commandment provides a splendid example of what I mean.

My own literal translation of the first commandment, directly from the Hebrew with the original syntax, goes like this:

"No having to you other gods over the face."

This translation is absolutely exact, and it makes no sense. Now, the word I have translated literally as "over" means, by implication, "in front of." This can be summed up in one word: "Before;" that is, as long as we understand that "before" means "in the presence of." Now, from the original, we have a problem. Does the commandment mean, "No having to you other gods before your face," or "before my face," in line the accepted standard translation ("before Me")?

The traditional translation is drawn from the larger theological understanding that God's presence fills the whole earth, and indeed, all creation. And so, the translation, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," requires this added revelation, termed by theology as omnipresence. Also, the distinction between having other gods, and having idols, is a distinction between the first and second commandment that helps us learn the subtle difference between a false god and an idol. This may not have been as clear in the days of Moses as it would be later. The Gnostics did not have literal idols, but rather false gods by definition. The ultimate false god that has no idol, that is, no image before which the devotee bows in worship, is the god of Mohamed.

The traditional rendering of the first commandment, consistent with the Latin translation (The Vulgate) is quite helpful in one respect, and not at all helpful in another. By helping us to see that worship of any other god is a sin even without an idol (as would be lost with our alternative option, “before your face”), we are able to grasp the fuller meaning of scripture. It is just as wrong to worship conceptual gods, as Marcion and Mohamed proclaimed, as it is to worship a deity represented by an idol. Unfortunately, the same customary translation that helps us in this respect also fails us by combining the first and second commandment into one commandment (followed by the equally mistaken custom of dividing the tenth commandment into two separate commandments), weakening the strength of this teaching. This was corrected by the Church of England, both in its very first Book of Common Prayer and in the early translations of the Bible into English

Raphael wrote also:

For this reason [by which he refers to what he said about the Vulgate], the Douay-Rheims is considered the definitive translation.

I prefer the translation of 1611. "Translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesty's special command." The translators were aided by their use of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. On the other hand, their conservatism kept them from making arbitrary and radical changes in traditional meaning. Without the second part, their diligence in comparison to former translations, they may have felt free to use translation as an excuse to be overly creative. That is, not that accurate translation would have been the problem, but the feeling and assumption of poetic license. This presumption of too much authority by some modern translators has led to utterly false renderings. In a previous article, I provided the following example (about the first error in one of the worst versions of the Bible available in English):

“ The first mistranslation in the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) combines the first two verses of Genesis into one sentence, adding wrongly the word 'when,' as if the world existed before God’s creation. ‘In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form…’ The Hebrew simply does not justify this ‘translation’ ... The first two sentences are not joined in the original Hebrew. The older “And, the earth was without form and void...” is literally correct, and it cannot be used to suggest Pantheism.”

The mistranslation I cited has become quite trendy among people who seem bent on trying to destroy the revealed doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, and so the NRSV is not the only example of this particular abuse. The problem here is either one of deliberate mistranslation, or an exaggerated regard for poetic license. Either way, it flies in the face of the two things that steered the translators of The Authorised Version (the King James). It would have been prevented by a sincere principle to “translate out of the original tongues" added by the second principle as a safeguard, namely, “and with the former translations diligently compared and revised.” What marked the King James as setting the standard for Bible translation was that combination of accuracy and humility. Accuracy of language and meaning, aided by the humility to learn from the work of past generations. Furthermore, this requires both an education in languages and in theology.

1.About St. Jerome, here is an interesting passage from a book. “'The flesh I might try to break with frequent fasting: but my mind was seething with imagination: so to tame it, I gave myself up for training to one of the brethren, a Hebrew who had come to the faith. And, so after the subtlety of Quintilian, the flowing of Cicero, the gravity of Fronto and the gentleness of Pliny, I began to learn another alphabet, and meditate on words that hissed and words that gasped' The final vintage was to be the Vulgate translation of the Old Testament: he was still working on Hebrew in his old age.”Helen Waddell, The Desert Fathers, (New York, 1998), p.33"

Conversion vs. Surrender

I have been debating with myself over the differences between conversion to Christianity and surrender to Christ. Are there differences between them, and if so, what are they?

I would begin by defining the difference between conversion and surrender as the difference between “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge” – the difference between learning the truth and KNOWING the TRUTH. When we hear about the Lord Jesus, and accept that it is the truth, that He is the Truth, we are converted. Does surrender also happen at this time? I am sure that it does in some cases, but not in all. It is true that conversion involves surrender to a degree, more with some than with others. We surrender to the knowledge that we cannot be our own saviors. We surrender to the knowledge that Christ Jesus is our only hope of salvation. To say that we recognize the surrender of control of our lives to His divine direction would be to get ahead of ourselves, however, because most do not. We all have our little “secreted” things, which we try to keep to ourselves. It is human nature to wish to be in control, and to fight “tooth and nail” against losing control in even the smallest measure.

But what would it look like if one were to fully surrender one’s life to the Lordship of Christ? As much as I would like to say “this” or “that,” I cannot because, as much as it pains me to say, I cannot honestly say that I have completely given my life over to the Lord. Every day the Holy Spirit shows me something of my old life to which I am clinging. Every day He convicts me of something to which I keep to myself. Every day I hear myself saying, “Yes, Lord, I want to, but I cannot,” or “Yes, Lord, I want to, but I do not know how.” Do I want to reach that maturity of faith, which leads to total surrender? Do I continue to grow and come closer? Do I believe that I will one day attain that ideal relationship with my Lord? Yes to all three of these. How long will it take? Maybe the rest of my life, but it will be worth it in the end.

Protestants emphasize evangelism, witnessing to those who do not know the Lord in order that they might be “saved.” Unfortunately, their focus usually ends here. Once they have seen that the convert has professed faith in Christ and is baptized, they move on to the next lost soul in order that he might find salvation. Many new Christians are left floundering in the dark, not knowing which way to turn. Many even fall away from religion, thinking it unnecessary. This truly is a shame – these “baby” Christians never mature in the faith. They never graduate from the “milk” of the Gospel to the “meat” of the word. They spend the remainder of their lives in a holding pattern, never really understanding the possibilities of a full, knowing, loving relationship with their newly found Savior.

While some Catholics understand a mission in evangelism, the majority of Catholicism concentrates on Catechizing the converted, or the children thereof, in the ways of the Church. Again this presents a problem in that, should a “seeker” find the Church, they do not tend to receive the totality of teaching required to reach maturity in the faith, not to mention that the concept is lacking on the other end of the spectrum from the Protestants. Again this leads to a falling away from the church by many, if not most.

My point is that, without continued education, new Christians cannot know enough to lead them to the point of spiritual maturity required for full surrender to Christ. In order to KNOW Him, we must know OF Him. But we cannot stop with simply knowing of Him.

Anyone with any experience in most mainline Protestant churches will recognize the term “altar call.” For those who do not, I will offer a brief explanation. After a hearty and sometimes emotional sermon, the pastor will usually call for any who wish to accept Christ as Savior. Accompanying his pleas, the choir, and oft times the congregation, will sing an “Invitation Hymn.” One of my favorites was “I Surrender All.” It is in part petition and in part a great profession of faith, but it speaks to the type of surrender of which I speak. May we all come to surrender to our Lord and depend upon Him, trusting that He will never lead us astray.

Jerry
<><

PS. I've added the lyrics below, as well as a link to a new rendition by a popular "Christian artist."

I Surrender All

All to Jesus, I surrender;
All to Him I freely give;
I will ever love and trust Him,
In His presence daily live.

Refrain

I surrender all,
I surrender all,
All to Thee, my blessèd Savior,
I surrender all.

All to Jesus I surrender;
Humbly at His feet I bow,
Worldly pleasures all forsaken;
Take me, Jesus, take me now.

Refrain

All to Jesus, I surrender;
Make me, Savior, wholly Thine;
Let me feel the Holy Spirit,
Truly know that Thou art mine.

Refrain

All to Jesus, I surrender;
Lord, I give myself to Thee;
Fill me with Thy love and power;
Let Thy blessing fall on me.

Refrain

All to Jesus I surrender;
Now I feel the sacred flame.
O the joy of full salvation!
Glory, glory, to His Name!

Refrain

Love Your Neighbor as Yourself...

Matt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Easy, right? Really? As stated by Jesus, these two commandments are the summation of the Law and the prophets, and as we know the law was given to show man his sin. We are not meant to be able to follow the law in and of ourselves. In fact, there has been only one person who has kept the law perfectly…Jesus the Christ. Following this logic, we cannot love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds without help from Him. Just as the gift of God’s grace gives us the desire and ability to believe unto salvation, that same grace gives us the ability to agapaō God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. What about the mandate that we are to agapaō our neighbor as ourselves? The same must, of course, apply. I would add to that the following: one cannot love his neighbor as himself unless he loves God with all his heart, soul, and mind; and one cannot love God with all his heart, soul, and mind without loving his neighbor as himself.

Do I love my neighbor as myself? I certainly try, but I will be the first to admit that I find difficulties in that from time to time. What does that say about my love for God? I think it means that while God has begun a good work in me, it is not yet finished. I am a work in progress. Do I love God? Emphatically, yes! Is it the perfect love that He demands? Sadly, no. How can I, an imperfect being, have perfect love? As I said, God gives the ability, I try, and eventually God will help me (allow me?) to get it right.

Lord I believe…please, help my unbelief!

Jerry
<><

Newbie Anglican - A Resolution and a Plea

I found this piece on the Rev. Canon Dr. Kendall Harmon’s blog and thought it very appropriate for the times in which we live. I’m including a link to the site, as well as adding it to my "Blogs" section.

Peace,
Jerry
<><

A Resolution and a Plea

I perhaps should have made this post on New Years Day or before. But I’ve struggled with how to approach what I think needs to be said and still do even as I type this (which will probably show). Those who peruse the big Anglican blogs know that “Communion Conservatives” (those who advocate contending for the faith by staying in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion) and “Federal Conservatives” (those who are convinced one or both of those bodies are too far gone to the point they think it best orthodox at least prepare to leave) are rather close to each other’s throats at the moment. To be honest, I have my opinion as to which side is most at blame, but that’s not my concern right now. This post may even seem a bit vague because I don’t want to engage in figure pointing. For my concern is that anger between the two sides is getting to and past the point that it will make it difficult for these two sides of orthodox Anglicans to work together in the future. That distresses me. If it turns out the Federal Conservatives are right and the Communion Conservative eventually find staying in TEC and the like to be untenable, I want the Comm-Cons to feel they have a refuge in Common Cause and/or whatever church bodies the Fed-Cons form. Likewise, if a miracle happens and the Anglican Communion or even the Episcopal Church sufficiently reforms, I want Fed-Cons to feel they can return. I hope the current divisions between the two are temporary. And even if Comm-Cons and Fed-Cons remain on different tracks, I want them to be able still to work together on those things they can. For the sake of current and future unity and witness, both sides should step back and engage in self-criticism instead of undercutting the other side. And, yes, there has been willful undercutting of the efforts of faithful orthodox Anglicans by other committed orthodox Anglicans. That must stop. Communion Conservatives should focus on what they are going to do in the current situation instead of undercutting what the Federal Conservatives are doing. Likewise, Federal Conservatives should focus on their direction and not ridicule the strategy of Communion Conservatives or say they are in any way unfaithful for staying. And I include myself in that. I find some Communion Conservatives exasperating at times, and when I get in rant mode, my words can be rather sharp. So if I’ve said anything unhelpful about the Comm-Cons, I apologize. I will exercise the utmost care in what I write about them from henceforth, and I invite my good readers to hold me accountable in that. Both sides need likewise to step back and repent or at least relent lest we become an ugly spectacle that makes our divisions harsher and more permanent and causes long lasting damage to orthodox Anglican unity and witness.

Wannabe Newbie Anglican

On Salvation, Part II

Through my Baptist upbringing, I was taught that once a person was “saved” – in other words: once one had accepted Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord thereby beginning a personal relationship with Him – they would always be saved, no matter what, hence the mantra “once saved, always saved.” There are biblical references made in support of this doctrine, of course, just as there are those that support the differing view held by many that one can fall from their salvation. Calvin held that continued salvation was dependant on continued faith. Roman Catholic teaching, as far as I understand, holds that continued salvation depends upon continued good works.

What follows is not based on literal reading of the Holy Scripture. It is, however, based on interpretation of scripture and history as I have heard it.

In the days in which our Lord walked on Earth, it was the practice of shepherds in the Holy Land to bring their sheep into the sheepfold for the night. This enclosure lacked a door. The reason for this was because the shepherd, himself, would sit or lie down in that space and would function as the door. This served two purposes. The first was to keep out predators and thieves. The second was to keep the sheep within the fold.

In the Gospel according to St. John 10:14 (KJV), our Lord says, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.” If a shepherd, a mere man, make of himself a door to keep his sheep within the sheepfold, then doesn’t it stand to reason that our Lord, the Good Shepherd, would do the same for His sheep? Once He takes us into the fold, does He not make of Himself a door to keep the devil (thief) out and to keep us safely within? The second half of this verse doesn’t necessarily lend itself to this discussion, per se. However, when one looks at another…

In the Gospel according to St. Matthew 7:11 (KJV), our Lord says, “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall you Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” By the same reasoning, if a shepherd, a mere man, will place himself in the doorway to keep his sheep inside the fold, safe from the thieves and predators, “how much more” shall the Good Shepherd, our Lord Jesus, keep us inside His fold and save us from the great thief?

Greater and more learned minds than mine have debated this question and come to differing conclusions. When I first quit running from the Holy Spirit, about one and one-half years ago, I began studying and attempting to justify the faith of my youth with actual scriptural truth. I started with an open mind, fully prepared to learn that I had been wrong for the greater part of my life. This is one of the issues with which I struggled, and I believe that this is the answer God wanted me to find.

Amen.

Happy Christmas

I just wanted to share one of my favorite songs of the season. I have no commentary to add; I only hope you enjoy it as much as I do. Feel free to comment if you like.

Pax,
Jerry
<><

In This Storm

I don’t know who put this video together, but they did an excellent job. This has been one of my favorite songs for some time. It really speaks to me. We all have storms in life, times when things seem to be going terribly wrong. Not only can we not seem to get out of those times, we can’t see any end in sight. Reason fails us…our strength wanes. The lightning illuminates just enough to make things look worse than they really are, and the thunder mocks us and our inabilities. We are at the mercy of the wind and waves, or so it seems.

As with the apostles, caught in a storm on the Sea of Galilee, and the Master was asleep. They panicked, they fretted, they did everything in their power to save the boat and their lives with it. Finally, when they had lost all hope, they called on the Master in their darkest hour. I can almost hear Him now: ”O ye of little faith…did you honestly think I would let you come to harm? If only you had come to me first, you could have been spared from all of this worry and heartache.”

But that is the problem with us humans: we think we can do everything ourselves, or at least that we should be able to. Not until all seems lost do we go to the only One who can give us the strength, the grace to come through our storms. The sovereign God is in control. We have to trust that there is a purpose for the storms of our lives, that God is helping us to grow through them. Nothing can grow without the rain…no blade of steel can be made without first going through the fire. We are to praise Him in the storms of this life because it is through the rain that we grow…it is through the fires that we become strong.